UT's race-based admissions challenged
Judge considers legality of UT's admission policy. A lawsuit seeks to bar university's use of race, ethnicity. That is, they are asking UT to do the right thing. Why do we need to spend taxpayer dollars to figure this out? Why isn't the Chancellor fired for even thinking this crazy race-based admission policy is a good idea?
Some reaction:
I look forward to the day when neither race nor gender is used as criteria for admissions or scholarships to institutions of higher learning. In our attempt to be inclusive, we end up excluding many otherwise deserving students. My two children are first generation African/American citizens (Algerian descent), yet because they are white, they do not qualify for any of the programs children of color receive. They are equally deserving when evaluated on performance or need alone, but when the criteria includes color as a consideration, they are excluded. I believe we should give merit when it is earned or deserved, and a leg-up to anyone who meets entry qualifications but is excluded due to finances. Good grades, financial need, and community involvement are a better gage of merit and character than genetics that are beyond the individuals control.
More comments:
A pure merit-based system would be fair. People are unhappy because their kid does better and is more qualified than another kid, yet the other kid gets accepted due to skin color or where they went to school. A system that judges people based on their race, to either exclude or favor, is biased and wrong. Diversity programs are breeding grounds for racist policies. Discrimination is still discrimination, no matter who does it or for what reason, and its still wrong.
Legally and morally speaking, UT's race-based acceptance process is wrong and defies the intention of both the 1996 and 2003 rulings. UT should be ashamed of themselves for allowing policies that are racist and subject applicants to violations of their civil rights.
Posts
4 comments:
It would be fantastic if the UT admissions policy were struck down, but I would feel even better if the Texas Legislature would adopt legislation preventing all Texas public universities from using race-based admissions policies (or any non-merit-based policies, for that matter).
Thanks for sharing this.
The Top 10% Law was put in place as a work around for affirmative action. Instead of having blatant quotas like affirmative action does, it instead grants automatic admissions to public universities in Texas for the top 10% of graduating seniors, regardless of the cirriculum.
What this means is that the kids from Johnston HS (which is rated as a failing school by the TEA) puts the same percentage of kids in the public universities as Westlake (which is rated exemplary by TEA). This is one of the many reasons that universities now teach remedial courses to over 50% of the incoming freshman.
It is unfortunate that the only Legislative solution is the end the Top 10% rule and put the ball back in the hands of the university administrators or tweek the top 10% rule to give the individual universities more "flexibility" in "diversification."
MJ, good point. Race-based admissions is bad policy and we shouldn't have to get a Federal Judge to tell us so.
Top 10 percent is being used as an excuse not to improve our inner-city or low-income school districts as well - if the school still graduates kids who will get into UT and Texas A&M by default, what incentive is there to improve conditions and education for the other 90%?
I have trouble determining which is worse - Texas' bloated K-12 system, or Texas' public university system. Either way, the fact that we even have to have a debate over race-based admissions policies proves to me that the bureaucrats running both systems do not have *every* child's best interest at heart.
Post a Comment